In Case No. 2002-0210, Petition of Representative Peter Burling & a., the
court on June 26, 2002, issued the following order:

Part II, Article 9 of the New Hampshire Constitution mandates that any apportionment
plan for the New Hampshire House of Representatives be based upon "the last general
census of the inhabitants of the state taken by authority of the United States or of this
state." N.H. CONST., pt. II, art. 9; seealsoMcGovern v. Secretary
of State, 138 N.H. 128, 131 (1993); N.H. CONST., pt. II, art. 26 (regarding
apportionment of senate). Accordingly, when the court issued an order on May 28, 2002
describing the criteria to which any redistricting plan submitted by the parties must
conform, these criteria included the requirement that the plan use PL 94-171 census data
and that it be provided as a census block equivalency file.

The Speaker of the House requested that the court modify its May 28, 2002 order to
state that plans be based on ward lines drawn as a result of the 2000 federal census,
rather than on census blocks. On June 4, 2002, the court modified its May 28, 2002 order
to permit, but not require, parties to submit plans based on ward lines drawn as a result
of the 2000 federal census. The court expressed no opinion as to whether any such plan
would satisfy the federal and state constitutional principle of one person/one vote, or
whether the court would adopt such a plan. The court invited the parties to address these
issues in their pleadings and at the time of oral argument.

The court received the plans submitted by the parties on or before June 6, 2002. The
plans submitted by the parties indicated that they were based upon ward boundaries drawn
after the 2000 federal census was conducted. None of the plans submitted by the parties
identified the ward boundaries changed after the 2000 census was conducted, the location
of the new ward boundaries, or the data from which the changed ward boundaries were
derived.

Thus, on June 10, 2002, the court ordered the House of Representatives to provide to
the court "in written and electronic form, the [census] block equivalency files
showing ward changes made by any city based on the 2000 federal census figures." The
House of Representative responded that it was unable to comply with this request before
oral argument on June 11, 2002.

At oral argument, the court told the parties that "we need the [census] block
equivalency files to show what census blocks were shifted from ward to ward . . . in order
for us to construct a plan. . . . We just have to know what pieces of the census data have
been changed as a result of these ward changes" and asked who had this information.
To give the parties time to answer this question, the court recessed oral argument
briefly. During the recess, the Clerk of Court asked counsel for the Secretary of State to
provide the court with information about any ward boundary changes made after the 2000
census was conducted and, specifically, to identify the census blocks affected by the ward
boundary changes. Counsel for the Secretary of State said that the Secretary of State did
not have this information.

Following the recess, counsel for the House of Representatives informed the court that
"only one city . . . uses census blocks [to change its ward boundaries], and
thats Dover." Counsel further informed the court that while the cities of
Manchester and Nashua had both changed their ward boundaries after the 2000 census was
conducted, neither city used census block data to make these changes; both cities
"used streets" to make changes to their ward boundaries.

Because our State Constitution requires that any apportionment plan be based upon the
last federal decennial census, see N.H. CONST., part II, arts. 9, 11, 26, the court
then informed the parties that "in the absence of the data, hearing that most of the
cities havent used the census data, and to expedite the process were in,
were going to have to rely upon the unadjusted PL 94-171 census data for those
wards."

Since oral argument, no party has provided the court with the requisite data. In the
opinion the court issued on June 24, 2002, in case no. 2002-0243, Petition of Senator
Clifton Below & a., the court relied upon the unadjusted PL 94-171 census data for
the entire State, including those cities that adjusted their ward boundaries after the
2000 census was conducted. The court stated that wherever changes to ward boundaries had
been made after the 2000 census was conducted, "it will be the responsibility of the
appropriate officials to conform the ward lines to the PL 94-171 data or to make
internal election process accommodations." (Emphasis added). For instance, RSA 656:1
(1996) makes the Secretary of State responsible for preparing and delivering the ballots
for all State elections, which might include preparing and delivering separate ballots for
voters in wards with changed boundaries.

In this case, the court also intends to use the PL 94-171 census data, and to rely upon
the ward boundaries submitted to the United States Census Bureau for the 2000 census
instead of upon the ward boundaries that changed after the 2000 census was conducted. It
will again "be the responsibility of the appropriate officials to conform the ward
lines to the PL 94-171 data or to make internal election process accommodations." See
RSA 656:1.

Should the parties wish the court to consider, in this case, using ward boundaries that
were changed after the 2000 census was conducted, they shall submit the following
information to the court by 12:00 p.m. on Monday, July 1, 2002:

1. A list of the cities that changed their ward boundaries after the State submitted
ward boundaries to the United States Census Bureau to enable the 2000 federal decennial
census to be conducted.

2. Certified copies of the city charters of those cities that changed their ward
boundaries after the ward boundaries were submitted to the United States Census Bureau for
the 2000 census.

3. The maps of the ward boundaries in cities that changed their boundaries after the
ward boundaries were submitted to the United States Census Bureau for the 2000 census.

4. An affidavit from the person responsible in each city that changed its ward
boundaries after the ward boundaries were submitted to the United States Census Bureau for
the 2000 census explaining how the changes to ward population were calculated (i.e., were
census block equivalency files used and, if so, how were they used; if census block
equivalency files were not used, how did they determine how many people lived in each
portion of a ward, etc.)

5. A stipulation, signed by all of the parties, indicating that the proposals submitted
to the court relied upon ward boundaries that had been changed after the ward boundaries
were submitted to the United States Census Bureau for the 2000 census.

6. A brief memorandum addressing the issue of whether the State Constitution permits
the court to adopt an apportionment plan that relies upon ward boundaries changed after
the 2000 census was conducted, without using the census block equivalency files.